On Jan 10, the Judiciary announced that Lord (Leonard) Hoffmann had been appointed to a new three-year term in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) as a nonpermanent judge from another common law jurisdiction (CLNPJ).

There are currently six CLNPJs, all distinguished retired judges from Australia and the United Kingdom. When required, they adjudicate upon cases together with the chief justice and the three permanent CFA judges. As part-timers, serving in rotation, they may be invited to sit for several weeks a year, and their expertise is invariably invaluable.

Hoffmann is the longest-serving CLNPJ appointed by the then-chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, in 1998. He has performed yeoman service over the last 27 years, having handled all types of cases. For example, on Jan 7, he was one of the five CFA judges who delivered a significant judgment on the use of hearsay evidence in criminal cases (FACC 9/2024).

The chief justice, Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, spoke for many when he said Hoffmann’s “continued commitment to the CFA reflects his strong support for the rule of law and judicial independence in Hong Kong”.

Hoffmann is a South African-British lawyer who, having practiced initially in South Africa, moved to the UK and scaled the heights of the British legal system.

Having been appointed a Queen’s Counsel (now King’s Counsel) in 1977, he became a high court judge in 1985 and an appeal court judge in 1992. Thereafter, in 1995, he was elevated to the House of Lords, where he became a lord of appeal in ordinary (Law Lord), and served with great distinction until 2009 (when, coincidentally, the Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the UK’s ultimate appellate tribunal).

Although he sometimes attracted controversy, the BBC in 1999 reported that Hoffmann was “reckoned by many to be the cleverest of the Law Lords”. And Legal Business magazine described him as “the most dominant personality in the Lords by a mile”.

After he retired as a Law Lord, Hoffmann assumed various law-related positions, including an intellectual property law professorship at the University of London. He also joined London’s Brick Court Chambers (as a “door tenant”) and excelled in arbitration. According to Brick Court, since leaving the bench, he has been appointed as an arbitrator in over 100 international commercial and investment treaty disputes.

The London-based legal assessors, Chambers and Partners (C&P), which was established in 1990 and now operates globally, has rated Hoffmann highly. It identifies and ranks the world’s best lawyers and law firms based on objective research, and the legal industry values its assessments.

In 2013, C&P said Hoffmann was “legendary” and “one of the pre-eminent legal minds of his generation”. In 2015, it concluded he was among the world’s “most influential” arbitrators, enjoying a “stellar reputation”.

Hong Kong is highly fortunate to enjoy the services of such an individual.

Moreover, he is his own man; only a fool would trifle with him. When, therefore, the then foreign secretary, Liz Truss, with her China-hostile agenda, sought to pressurize the CFA’s British judges into quitting in March 2022 (telling them their presence was “no longer tenable” and “risked legitimizing oppression”), she got nowhere with Hoffmann.

Even the former governor, Chris Patten, was appalled by Truss’ conduct. He told the journalist Howard Davies, “I thoroughly disapprove of politicians telling judges what to do.” (Nov 22, 2022)

Although several faint hearts succumbed to Truss’ pressure, Hoffmann was cut from a different cloth. He decided not to let Hong Kong down in difficult times and has faithfully served its people.

This infuriated some individuals, particularly those who want to undermine Hong Kong’s legal system as a way of diminishing China. They know their claims about the city’s rule of law being in terminal decline will not be taken seriously while its top court is serviced by renowned jurists like Hoffmann. Their presence illustrates the vibrancy of Hong Kong’s common law arrangements under the “one country, two systems” policy, which is why they are being pressurized into departing by China’s antagonists.

At his time of life, Hoffmann did not need any supposed “privileges”. He has done extraordinarily well during a long and varied career and receives a not-inconsiderable pension from the British government. He certainly deserved better than cheap jibes from bigots, although this was only the start

One such is the US-based Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong (CFHK) Foundation. Its statement (Jan 10) said that Hoffmann’s decision to continue serving was “utterly deplorable”. It called on all the “foreign judges to do the decent thing, and immediately resign from the Hong Kong courts” (knowing this would paralyze the entire judicial system, given that, under Hong Kong’s unique legal arrangements, foreign judges sit not only in the CFA but also in the appeal and trial courts).

In a squalid slur, CFHK (whose advisors include the former RTHK chat show host, Steve Vines) even suggested that Hoffmann acted out of base motives. They claimed he was “determined to enjoy the privileges incumbent with his position for as long as he possibly can”, relishing the “privileges of the Hong Kong elites”. It did not occur to them that Hoffmann extended his service because he is devoted to Hong Kong and wants to serve its people as best he can.

At his time of life, Hoffmann did not need any supposed “privileges”. He has done extraordinarily well during a long and varied career and receives a not-inconsiderable pension from the British government. He certainly deserved better than cheap jibes from bigots, although this was only the start.

Since its inception, the CFHK has relied heavily upon the “big lie” technique to promote its messages. It believes that if a fallacy is repeated frequently enough, the point may come when some people would think it is true.

For example, in demanding Hoffmann’s departure, CFHK claimed, for the umpteenth time, that the national security suspect and former media magnate, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, was “languishing in solitary confinement” in a Hong Kong prison. It gave the impression this was a punishment being deliberately inflicted upon him by the authorities. However, it failed to disclose that Lai is separated from the other inmates at his own request, and that if he asked to rejoin the general prison population there is no reason to suppose his wish would not be granted.

Again, CFHK sought to sensationalize a photograph showing Lai “paraded around in chains”. What it disregarded is that it is standard practice among law enforcers everywhere, including in the United States, for prisoners who are being transferred from one location to another to be handcuffed or otherwise restrained, for elementary security reasons.

When CFHK selectively criticized several of Hoffmann’s judgments, it was scraping the bottom of the barrel. Like top jurists everywhere, he has always sought to achieve just outcomes by interpreting the law equitably and deciding cases without fear or favor. Cheap shots by people who have not heard the legal submissions, read the relevant laws, studied the case precedents, or understood the judgments are contemptible, and demean the makers (the calumnies were hopefully not cleared with Vines, although anything is possible in the ugly world he now inhabits).

The CFHK is committed to denigrating Hong Kong, and there are no depths to which it will not sink. It is run by Mark Clifford, who used to work for Lai’s company, Next Digital, and is said to be his personal friend. Although close friendships can be very good things, they cannot be allowed to corrupt judgments, let alone degenerate into paranoia.

Clifford spends his days glorifying Lai, even if it means belittling legal titans like Hoffmann. He has got it into his head that if Hoffman and his colleagues were to quit, it would somehow benefit Lai (and the other criminal elements he lionizes). However, if the CLNPJs walked away from their responsibilities, the big losers would be the people of Hong Kong. They rightly trust their Judiciary, which is highly regarded throughout the common law world.

Indeed, the CFA, composed of outstanding local judges and eminent CLNPJs like Hoffman, has helped to make the Hong Kong Judiciary one of the most impressive in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2024, Hong Kong was rated 23rd out of the 142 jurisdictions surveyed in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index (ahead of the United States at 26th), and much of the credit for this must go to its Judiciary.

However, while denouncing “a broken system”, the CFHK conveniently ignored the Index’s upbeat assessment of the state of the rule of law in Hong Kong. This has always been the way with propaganda outfits, which are determined to prevent the truth from interfering with their dishonest narratives.

Although there were 10 CLNPJs at the start of 2024, only six remain. Whereas two retired last year, another two resigned. Although it may not be easy, the challenge now for the Judiciary is to recruit more CLNPJs with the ability, courage, and stature of Lord Hoffmann.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.